CAR_Public/071119.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Monday, November 19, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 229

                            Headlines

CAR RENTALS: Face Price-Fixing Antitrust Lawsuit in California
COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Borrowers File Breach of Contract Complaint
DOJOO PTY: Petroleum Buyers Plan Suit Over Misrepresentation
DOLGENCORP INC: Recalls Kids Sunglasses on Paint's Lead Content
FAIRPOINT COMMS: N.C. Court Junks ““Lowinger” Securities Suit

FLIGHT SAFETY: Settles Securities Fraud Suit in Conn. for $1.2M
GATE FIVE: Recalls Fire-Prone Birch Bark Wrapped Candles
GILEAD SCIENCES: Dismissal of Cal. Securities Suit Under Appeal
HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Wis. Court Mulls Motion to Junk Securities Suit
HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Wis. Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss ERISA Suit

HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Court Mulls Dismissal Motion in Info. Leak Suit
ICEBERG ENTERPRISES: Recalls Folding Chairs that can Collapse
ISRAEL CHEMICALS: Faces $254M Suit for Polluting Air in Negev
LIFE UNIVERSITY: Seeks to Decertify Suit Over Accreditation
MARVEL TOYS: Recalls Plush Dolls on Paint's High Lead Level

MASTERCARD INT’L: March Hearing Set in Conversion Fee Suit Deal
MASTERCARD INT'L: Dismissal of Interchange Fees Suit Appealed
MASTERCARD INT’L: Discovery Continues in Interchange Fees MDL
MASTERCARD INC: Ruling on Motion to Junk Suit Over IPO Pending
MASTERCARD INT’L: Discovery Ongoing in Calif. Consumer Lawsuit

MCDONALD'S CORP: Ill. Securities Fraud Lawsuit Now Closed
OLD GENTILLY: Lawsuit Filed Over New Orleans Landfill
PROTIVITI INC: Still Faces Consultant's Overtime Suit in Calif.
PUGET ENERGY: Faces Suit in Wash. Over Proposed Acquisition
RADIOSHACK CORP: Courts Approve $8.8M FLSA Lawsuit Settlement

REGENCE BLUESHIELD: Faces Wash. Lawsuit Over Customer Fraud
ROBERT HALF: Calif. Court Certifies Class in Overtime Pay Suit
ROBERT HALF: Seeks Stay on State Law Claims in Mass. Labor Suit
SAFECO INSURANCE: Chiropractor Told to Produce Billing Records
SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: July 2008 Trial Set for Suit Over Disposal

TD BANK: Court Certifies “Illegal” Visa Cardholders Fee Suit
TRANSKARYOTIC THERAPIES: Parties Settle Securities Suit for $50M


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

FX ENERGY: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Suit
SYNTAX-BRILLIAN: Gardy & Notis Files Securities Suit in Ariz.
VODAFONE GROUP: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit


                          *********


CAR RENTALS: Face Price-Fixing Antitrust Lawsuit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action complaint was filed Nov. 14 in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California against major car
rental firms over alleged fixing of prices on rental cars at
California airports.

Named defendants in the complaint are:

          -- The Hertz Corp.,
          -- Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc.,
          -- Avis Budget Group, Inc.,
          -- VanGuard Car Rental USA, Inc.,
          -- Rent-A-Car Co.,
          -- Fox Rent A Car, Inc.,
          -- Coast Leasing Corp.,
          -- The California and Tourism Commission, and
          -- Caroline Beteta

Named plaintiffs Michael Shames and Gary Gramkow allege this
rental car defendants have entered into a horizontal price-
fixing agreement among competitors, a per se violation of the
antitrust laws, by which they have agreed to raise, stabilize
and fix the prices which they charge consumers for the rental of
automobiles at those California airports.

The conspirators also allegedly misrepresent a 2.5% tax owed to
the co-defendant California Travel and Tourism Commission as
owed by customers, though it is owed by the businesses, the suit
says.

Plaintiffs bring this suit as a class action pursuant to Rules
23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of civil Procedure,
on behalf of all individual or entities who purchased rental car
services from rental car defendants from a California situs
airport after Jan. 1, 2007.

They want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants formed and operated a combination or
         conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the
         prices of, or allocate the market for, car rental
         services operating in conjunction with California
         airports;

     (b) whether the combination or conspiracy caused the prices
         of car rental services operating in conjunction with
         California airports to be higher than they would have
         been in the absence of defendants' conduct;

     (c) the operative time period of defendants' combination or
         conspiracy;

     (d) whether defendants' conduct caused injury to the
         business or property of plaintiffs and the members of
         the class;

     (e) the appropriate measure of damages suffered by the
         class;

     (f) whether defendants' conduct violates Section 1 of the
         Sherman Act;

     (g) whether defendants' conduct violates California's
         Unfair competition Law;

     (h) whether defendants' conduct violates California's
         Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act; and

     (i) the appropriate nature of class-wide equitable relief.

Plaintiffs pray for the following relief:

     -- an injunction halting all violations, and other
        equitable relief, including restitution and disgorgement
        of unjust enrichment;

     -- damages suffered by the plaintiffs and the class,
        trebled according to law; and

     -- attorneys' fees, costs of suit, and interest as
        permitted by law.

The suit is "Michael Shames et al. v. The Hertz Corp. Case No.
07CV 2174 H BLM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Robert C. Fellmeth
          Ed Howard
          Center for Public Interest Law
          University of San Diego School of Law
          5998 Alcala Park
          San Diego, CA 92110
          Phone: (619) 260-4806
          Fax: (619) 260-4753
          E-mail: cpil@sandiego.edu

          Donald G. Rez
          Sullivan, Hill, Lewin, Rez & Engel
          550 West "C" Street, Suite 1500
          San Diego, California 62101
          Phone: (619) 233-4100
          Fax: (619) 231-4372
          E-mail: rez@shlaw.com

          - and -

          Dennis Stewart
          Kirk Hulett
          Hulett Harper Stewart LLP
          550 West "C" Street, Suite 1600
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 338-1133
          Fax: (619) 338-1139
          E-mail: dstewart@hulettharper.com


COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Borrowers File Breach of Contract Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP is facing a class-action
complaint filed Nov. 14 in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas alleging it "improperly retain(s)
unearned per diem interest on conforming Fannie Mac and Freddie
Mac residential loans and VA-guaranteed residential loans ...
which are repaid by the borrower before scheduled maturity," the
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiffs Timothy J. Lauricella and Jessica Kay
Lauricella pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and
23(b)(3), on behalf of all persons in the United States who:

     (1) who executed a Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac conforming, or
         VA-guaranteed, home loan promissory note;

     (2) from whom defendant collected unearned per diem  
         interest at or after the promissory note principal was
         fully paid, from Oct. 1, 2003 to the present; and

     (3) to whom defendant failed to return any unearned per
         diem interest collected on that promissory note, within
         30 days after the note principal was paid in full.

Plaintiffs pray for judgment in their favor and against
defendants as follows:

     -- that the court find that the present case may be
        properly maintained as a class action and that the court
        appoint plaintiffs as the class representatives and
        their attorneys as counsel for the class;

     -- that the court order defendant to return the money it
        retained in breach of its contracts with plaintiffs and
        other class members, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment
        interest thereon; and

     -- that the court award the class such other and further
        relief as the court may deem just and proper.

The suit is "Timothy J. Lauricella et al. v. Countrywide Home
Loans Servicing, LP, Case No. 4:07cv516," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Michael C. Dodge
          David W. Dodge
          Dodge & Associates, P.C.
          Regency Plaza
          3710 Rawlins, Ste. 1600
          Dallas, Texas 75219
          Phone: (214) 273-3280
          Fax: (214) 273-3281
          E-mail: miked@texasatty.com or davidd@texasatty.com

          - and -

          Andrew S. Friedman
          Garrett W. wotkyns
          Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, P.C.
          2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1000
          Phoenix, Arizona 85012
          Phone: (602) 274-1100
          Fax: (602) 274-1199
          E-mail: afriedman@bffb.com or gwotkyns@bffb.com


DOJOO PTY: Petroleum Buyers Plan Suit Over Misrepresentation
------------------------------------------------------------
A number of Dojoo Pty Ltd. customers are planning to file a
class action against the Ballina, Australia-based company whose
owner is subject of criminal proceedings by the
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, Helen Jack of
Northern Star reports.

In September, the ACCC initiated criminal proceedings in the
Federal Court alleging that Dojoo Pty, trading as Ballina
Petroleum Distributors, and its managing director, Santo
Pennisi, made false representations about the quality and
composition of petrol sold at 12 BP-branded service stations in
northern New South Wales.

The ACCC alleges that between Sept. 14, 2004 and June 22, 2007,
Dojoo caused almost two million liters of unleaded petrol to be
delivered to the various service stations and placed in the
tanks containing 'Premium', 'Ultimate' and 'Lead Replacement'
petrol.

The ACCC said that as a result of mixing unleaded petrol with
Premium and Ultimate, the petrol sold often had a lower octane
rating than represented. The ACCC said that as a result of
mixing unleaded petrol with lead replacement petrol, the petrol
sold did not have the attributes ordinarily associated with lead
replacement petrol as represented by the use of the fuel name
'Lead Replacement' petrol on the bowsers.

The ACCC alleges that Mr. Pennisi was knowingly concerned in the
company's conduct.  He has been convicted of fraud and faces
sentence on Dec. 18.

Somerville Laundry Lomax is leading the action, according to the
report.  Solicitor Ben Robin said any suit would have to wait
until criminal proceedings had been completed.  


DOLGENCORP INC: Recalls Kids Sunglasses on Paint's Lead Content
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dolgencorp Inc., of Goodlettsville, Tenn., in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
51,000 children's fashion sunglasses.

The company said the yellow surface paint on the sunglasses may
contain excessive levels of lead, violating the federal lead
paint standard.

No incidents/injuries have been reported so far.

The recall involves yellow children's sunglasses. No other
colors of sunglasses are included in this recall. The word
"CHINA" is printed on the left side of the frame. The UPC
#400007860896 and words "Fashion Sunglasses" and "Time to Play
Every Day" are printed on the product's red hangtag.

The sunglasses were made in China and sold a Dollar General
stores nationwide from March 2005 through October 2007 for $1.

Consumers should take the recalled sunglasses away from young
children immediately and return them to any Dollar General store
for a full refund.


FAIRPOINT COMMS: N.C. Court Junks ““Lowinger” Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina dismissed with prejudice the stockholder class action,
“Lowinger v. Johnson, et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-00316,” which
names Fairpoint Communications, Inc., as defendant.

On June 6, 2005, a purported class-action complaint was filed in
the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, of the
State of North Carolina by Robert Lowinger on behalf of himself
and all other similarly situated persons against the company,
the company's chairman and chief executive officer, certain of
the company's current and former directors and certain of the
company's stockholders.

The complaint alleged violations of Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) and
liability under Section 15 of the U.S. Securities Act.  It also
alleged that the company's registration statement on Form S-1
(which was declared effective by the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Feb. 3, 2005) and the related prospectus
dated Feb. 3, 2005, each relating to the company's initial
public offering of common stock, contained certain material
misstatements and omitted certain material information necessary
to be included relating to the company's broadband products and
access line trends.

The plaintiff, who has been a plaintiff in several other
securities cases, sought rescission rights and unspecified
damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the
common stock “issued pursuant and/or traceable to the company's
IPO during the period from Feb. 3, 2005 through March 21, 2005.”

The company removed the action to the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of North Carolina.  The plaintiff filed a
motion to remand the action to the North Carolina State Court,
which was denied by the Federal Magistrate.  The plaintiff
objected to and appealed the Magistrate's decision to the
district court judge.

The company contested the appeal and filed a motion to dismiss
the action.  

The Magistrate, on Feb. 9, 2006, issued a Memorandum and a
Recommendation to the District Court Judge that the Motion to
Dismiss be granted and that the complaint be dismissed with
prejudice.  

The plaintiff filed a Notice of Objection to the Magistrate's
Recommendation.

On Aug. 16, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina accepted the Magistrate's
recommendations as its own and dismissed the complaint with
prejudice.

The suit is “Lowinger v. Johnson, et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-
00316,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina under Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr.,
with referral to Judge Carl Horn, III.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Jeffrey S. Abraham, Esq.
         Lawrence D. Levit, Esq.
         Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP
         One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
         New York, NY 10119
         Phone: 212-279-5050
         Fax: 212-279-3655

              - and -

         John Thurston O'Neal, Esq.
         O'Neal Law Office
         7 Battleground Court, Suite 212
         Greensboro, NC 27408
         Phone: 336-510-7904
         Fax: 336-510-7965
         E-mail: oneallaw@triadbiz.rr.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Brian S. Appel, Esq.
         Charles E. Davidow, Esq.
         Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP
         2445 M. St., NW
         Washington, DC 20037
         Phone: 202-663-6000

              - and -

         James Patrick McLoughlin, Jr., Esq.
         Moore & Van Allen
         Suite 4700, 100 North Tryon Street
         Charlotte, NC 28202
         Phone: 704-331-1054
         Fax: 704-378-2054
         E-mail: jimmcloughlin@mvalaw.com


FLIGHT SAFETY: Settles Securities Fraud Suit in Conn. for $1.2M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Flight Safety Technologies, Inc. reached a settlement in
principle with the plaintiffs in a securities class action filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.

Under the terms of the agreement in principle, all claims
against all of the defendants will be dismissed without
presumption or admission of liability or wrongdoing. A one time
settlement payment of $1.2 million will be made to the plaintiff
class by or on behalf of the defendants.

The suit was filed on behalf of all persons or entities that
purchased company securities during the period between Jan. 14,
2003 and July 16, 2004.  

The complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, and
state common laws by making a series of materially false and
misleading statements concerning the SOCRATES Wake Vortex
Detector.

On Oct. 19, 2005, the court entered the order signed by Judge
Christopher F. Droney appointing lead plaintiffs and lead
counsel.  On December 23, 2005, a consolidated amended complaint
was filed.  

The defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint on Feb. 28, 2006 (Class Action
Reporter, Jan. 19, 2007).

Under the settlement, the company has agreed to contribute
$135,000 of the $1.2 million settlement. The settlement is
subject to a number of conditions, including negotiation and
execution of appropriate settlement documents between the
parties, preliminary and final court approval and other factors.

At this time there can be no assurance that those conditions
will be met or that the settlement in principle will receive
final court approval.

The reference complaint is "In Re: Flight Safety Technologies,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-01175," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut under Judge
Christopher F. Droney.

Plaintiff firms named in complaint:

          Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP
          275 Madison Ave 34th Flr.
          New York, NY, 10016
          Phone: 212-682-1818
          Fax: 212-682-1892
          E-mail: email@murrayfrank.com

          The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
          350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5508
          New York, NY, 10118
          Phone: 212-686-1060
          Fax: 212-202-3827
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com

          - and -

          Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY, 10016
          Phone: 212-545-4600
          Fax: 212-686-0114
          E-mail: newyork@whafh.com


GATE FIVE: Recalls Fire-Prone Birch Bark Wrapped Candles
--------------------------------------------------------
Gate Five Group LLC, d.b.a. Roost, of Sausalito, California, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 1,200 Birch-bark wrapped candles.

The company said the bark wrapping of the candle can ignite when
the candle burns down, posing a fire hazard.

The firm has received three reports of the birch bark wrapping
igniting as the candle burned down. No injuries or property
damage have been reported.

This recall involves the following Roost birch bark wrapped
candles. The center of the candle is white and the sides are
covered with brown birch bark. “Roost” and the item number can
be found on the box. “Roost” can also be found on the warning
label on the bottom of the candle.

          Item Number      Size (Inches)

          CN501            4 x 4
          CN502            7 x 6
          CN503            7 x 9
          CN504            12 x 3

These recalled candles were manufactured in China anad are being
sold by specialty retailers nationwide from September 2007
through October 2007 for between $20 and $80.

Picture of recalled candles:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08083.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the candles immediately and
return them to the place of purchase for a full refund or call
Roost for product pickup and a full refund.

For additional information, contact Roost collect at (415) 339-
9500 ext. 212 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.roostco.com.


GILEAD SCIENCES: Dismissal of Cal. Securities Suit Under Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated securities fraud complaint filed
against Gilead Sciences, Inc. are appealing the dismissal of the
case by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

On May 12, 2006, the federal court executed orders dismissing in
its entirety and with prejudice the fourth consolidated amended
complaint associated with a purported class action against:

     -- Gilead, and
     -- the company's
        * chief executive officer,
        * chief financial officer,
        * former executive vice president of operations,
        * executive vice president of research and development,
        * senior vice president of manufacturing, and
        * senior vice president of research.

The complaint is generally alleging that the defendants violated
federal securities laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the Securities and Exchange
Commission, by making certain alleged false and misleading
statements.  The plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal.

The company reported no development in the case at its Nov. 2,
2007 Form 10-Q Filling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is “In re Gilead Sciences Securities litigation, Case  
No. 03-CV-4999,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Martin J. Jenkins.

Representing thee plaintiffs are:

          Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky
          60 East 42 Street
          New York, NY, 10021
          Phone: 212.687.6655

          Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
          425 California Street, Suite 2025
          San Francisco, CA, 94104
          Phone: 415.433.3200
          Fax: 415.433.6382

               - and -

          Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP
          10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY, 10016
          Phone: 800.217.1522
          E-mail: info@bernlieb.com

Representing the defendants are:

          John C. Dwyer, Esq.
          Grant P. Fondo, Esq.
          Cooley Godward, LLP
          Five Palo Alto Square, 3000 El Camino Real
          Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155
          Phone: 650-843-5000
          Fax: 650-857-0663
          E-mail: dwyerjc@cooley.com
                  gfondo@cooley.com


HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Wis. Court Mulls Motion to Junk Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
has yet to rule on a motion seeking for the dismissal of a
consolidated securities fraud class action filed against Harley-
Davidson, Inc. and certain of its officers.

Initially, a number of shareholder class actions were filed
between May 18, 2005 and July 1, 2005.  On Feb. 14, 2006, the
court consolidated all of the actions into a single case,
captioned, “In re Harley-Davidson, Inc. Securities Litigation,”
and appointed lead plaintiffs and co-lead plaintiffs' counsel.  

Pursuant to the schedule set by the court, on Oct. 2, 2006, the
lead plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint,
which names the company and Jeffrey L. Bleustein, James L.
Ziemer, and James M. Brostowitz, who are company officers, as
defendants.  

The consolidated complaint alleges securities law violations and
seeks unspecified damages relating generally to the company's
April 13, 2005 announcement that it was reducing short-term
production growth and planned increases of motorcycle shipments
from 317,000 units in 2004 to a new 2005 target of 329,000 units
(compared to its original target of 339,000 units).  

On Dec. 18, 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Consolidated Complaint in its entirety.  Briefing of the motion
to dismiss was completed in April 2007.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 2,
2007 Form 10-Q Filling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Harley-Davidson, Inc. -- http://www.harley-davidson.com--  
operates in two segments: the Motorcycles & Related Products
segment and the Financial Services segment.  The Motorcycles &
Related Products (Motorcycles) segment includes the group of
companies doing business as Harley-Davidson Motor Company (Motor
Company) and the group of companies doing business as Buell
Motorcycle Company (Buell).  


HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Wis. Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss ERISA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
has yet to rule on a motion seeking for the dismissal of a
purported class action alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 against Harley-Davidson
Inc.

On Aug. 25, 2005, a class action alleging violations of ERISA
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin.  

On Feb. 15, 2006, the court ordered the ERISA action
consolidated with the federal derivative and securities actions
for administrative purposes.

Pursuant to the schedule set by the court, on Oct. 2, 2006, the
ERISA plaintiff filed an amended class action complaint, which
named as defendants:

     -- the company,
     -- the Harley-Davidson Motor Company Retirement Plans
        Committee,
     -- the company's Leadership and Strategy Council, and
     -- current or former company officers or employees:
        
        * Harold A. Scott,
        * James L. Ziemer,
        * James M. Brostowitz,
        * Gail A. Lione,
        * Joanne M. Bischmann,
        * Karl M. Eberle,
        * Jon R. Flickinger,
        * Ronald M. Hutchinson,
        * James A. McCaslin,
        * W. Kenneth Sutton, Jr., and
        * Donna F. Zarcone.

In general, the ERISA complaint includes factual allegations
similar to those in the shareholder class actions and alleges on
behalf of participants in certain Harley-Davidson retirement
savings plans that the plan fiduciaries breached their ERISA
fiduciary duties.

On Dec. 18, 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
ERISA complaint in its entirety.  Briefing of the motion to
dismiss was completed in April 2007.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 2,
2007 Form 10-Q Filling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is "Bosman v. Harley-Davidson Inc., et al., Case No.
2:05-cv-00912-CNC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin under Judge Charles N. Clevert,  
Jr.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

         Noah M. Golden-Krasner, Esq.
         Law Offices of Noah Golden-Krasner
         354 W. Main St.
         Madison, WI 53703
         Phone: 608-441-8924
         Fax: 608-442-9494
         E-mail: noah@mainstreetjustice.com;

              - and -

         Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
         Gainey & McKenna, 485 5th Ave., 3rd Fl.
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-983-1300

Representing the defendants are:  

         Charles C. Jackson, Esq.
         Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP
         77 W. Wacker Dr. - 5th Fl.
         Chicago, IL 60601
         Phone: 312-324-1156
         Fax: 312-324-1001
         E-mail: charles.jackson@morganlewis.com

              - and -

         Nancy J. Sennett, Esq.
         Rebecca E. Wickhem, Esq.
         Foley & Lardner, LLP
         777 E. Wisconsin Ave.
         Milwaukee, WI 53202-5300
         Phone: 414-297-5522 and 414-297-5681
         Fax: 414-297-4900 and 414-297-4900
         E-mail: nsennett@foley.com
                 rwickhem@foley.com


HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Court Mulls Dismissal Motion in Info. Leak Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to rule on a motion seeking for the dismissal of a
purported class action against Harley-Davidson, Inc., and the
Harley Owners Group.

The suit was originally filed in the Supreme Court of the State
of New York on Jan. 22, 2007, but has been transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
Feb. 23, 2007.  

The complaint alleges that the company was negligent in failing
to properly safeguard, protect and keep confidential the
personal “Customer Identifiable Information” that was stored on
a company laptop computer that was lost on or about Aug. 14,
2006.  

The complaint also alleges that Harley-Davidson breached
fiduciary duties and made false and fraudulent representations
and warranties to its customers that it would keep confidential
and safeguard and protect the personal customer information in
its possession.  It seeks unspecified damages.

On April 5, 2007, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.  Briefing is completed on the motion to dismiss and
the parties are awaiting a ruling, according to the company's
Nov. 2, 2007 Form 10-Q Filling with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30,
2007.

The suit is “Shafran v. Harley-Davidson, Inc. et al., Case No.
1:07-cv-01365-GBD,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge George B. Daniels.

Representing the defendant is:

         Stephen Randall Neuwirth, Esq.
         Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges LLP
         51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
         New York, NY 10010
         Phone: (212) 702-8100 x8165
         Fax: (212) 702-8200
         E-mail: stephenneuwirth@quinnemanuel.com


ICEBERG ENTERPRISES: Recalls Folding Chairs that can Collapse
-------------------------------------------------------------
Iceberg Enterprises LLC, of Park Ridge, Ill., in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling
about 75,000 of plastic folding chairs.

The company said the plastic folding chairs can collapse during
use, posing a fall hazard to consumers.

Iceberg Enterprises has received about 15 reports of chairs
collapsing while in use, including three minor injuries.

This recall involves Iceberg plastic round leg folding
chairs. The metal support of the chair is charcoal and the seat
and back support are beige. "Iceberg" is printed on a logo
located on the back of the seat. Chairs with oval-shaped legs
are not included in this recall.

The chairs were made in the U.S. and sold at office supply
retailers nationwide from August 2005 through July 2007 for
about $30.

Consumers are advised to stop using the chairs immediately and
contact Iceberg Enterprises to receive a free repair kit with
instructions.

For additional information, contact Iceberg Enterprises at (800)
580-1310 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. CT Monday through Friday or
e-mail the firm at chairrecall@icebergenterprises.com.


ISRAEL CHEMICALS: Faces $254M Suit for Polluting Air in Negev
-------------------------------------------------------------
Israel Chemicals Ltd. (TASE: CHIM) Industrial Products Division
is facing a NIS1.09 billion ($254.2 million) lawsuit in the
Beersheva District Court alleging air pollution, the Israel
Business Arena reports.  

The petitioners have asked the court to recognize the claim as a
class action on behalf of Negev residents who suffered damage to
their health.

Israel Chemicals said that it had not yet assessed the lawsuit.

Israel Chemicals Limited's principal activities are the
development, manufacturing, marketing and sale of fertilizers,
bromine and bromine compounds, special chemicals, magnesium
metal and related products. It fulfills the production
activities primarily in Israel, which are based on exploration
of natural resources in the Dead Sea, and, to a lesser extent,
in Europe.


LIFE UNIVERSITY: Seeks to Decertify Suit Over Accreditation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers for Georgia's Life University will argue today to
decertify a class action filed on behalf of students who claim
they were harmed by the chiropractic university's temporary loss
of accreditation in 2002, The Associated Press reports.

Fulton County State Court Judge Diane Bessen will hear the
arguments.

It is the third time the university has tried to decertify the
lawsuit, said Dr. Joe Hoffman, a chiropractor and attorney who
represents the students.

In 2003, a Fulton County Superior Court judge granted class-
action status to the lawsuit, filed in November by about 500
students, who are seeking a jury trial and damages against Life
University over the alleged negligent loss of its accreditation
(Class Action Reporter, March 07, 2003).

A lawyer for the university, located in Marietta, Georgia, says
the students have suffered financially and emotionally because
the school lost its largest degree program, the doctor of
chiropractic on October 20, 2002.  Graduates of schools without
accreditation in the doctor of chiropractic program, cannot be
licensed to practice in most states.  The lawsuit claims that
the accreditation loss was due to the negligence of the
university trustees and former President Sid Williams.

University officials said the lawsuit should be decertified
because they don't feel it's valid and other class actions
against the school already have been dismissed.


MARVEL TOYS: Recalls Plush Dolls on Paint's High Lead Level
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marvel Toys, of New York, N.Y., in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 175,000
Curious George Plush Dolls.

The company said the surface paint on the toy''s plastic face
and construction hat contain excessive levels of lead, which
violates the federal lead paint standard.  No injuries have been
reported.

This recall involves Curious George 12-inch plush dolls with a
plastic face. The dolls are dressed to represent five various
themes: birthday, fireman, sweet dreams, tool time and tool time
with a soft face. The plush dolls were sold with a Curious
George storybook or activity book. The following product and SKU
numbers are printed on the packaging.

          Birthday 90253/ 8-83199-90253-5
          Fireman       90246/ 8-83199-90246-7
          Sweet Dreams 90247/ 8-83199-90247-4
          Tool Time 90251/ 8-83199-90251-1
          Tool Time  90251/ 8-83199-90251-1
          (soft face)

These recalled plush dolls were manufactured in China and are
being sold at toy and discount department stores nationwide from
December 2005 through August 2007 for about $15.

Pictures of recalled plush dolls:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08079a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08079b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08079c.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08079d.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08079e.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately take the recalled toys away
from children and contact Marvel Toys to receive a full refund.  
For additional information, contact Marvel Toys at (800) 352-
2064 between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or
visit the firm's Web site: http://www.regcen.com/curiousgeorge


MASTERCARD INT’L: March Hearing Set in Conversion Fee Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
A March 31, 2008 hearing is set for the final approval of the
settlement reached in a consolidated suit over MasterCard
International, Inc.'s one percent currency conversion “fee.”

MasterCard International, Visa U.S.A., Inc., Visa International
Corp., several member banks including Citibank (South Dakota),
N.A., Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A., Bank of America, N.A.
(USA), MBNA, and Citicorp Diners Club Inc. are defendants in a
number of federal putative class actions that allege, among
other things, violations of federal antitrust laws based on the
asserted one percent currency conversion “fee.”

Pursuant to an order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation, the federal complaints have been consolidated in MDL
No. 1409 before Judge William H. Pauley III in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  

In January 2002, the federal plaintiffs filed a Consolidated
Amended Complaint adding MBNA Corp. and MBNA America Bank, N.A.
as defendants.  This pleading asserts two theories of antitrust
conspiracy under Section 1 of the Sherman Act:

     (i) an alleged “inter-association” conspiracy among
         MasterCard (together with its members), Visa (together
         with its members) and Diners Club to fix currency
         conversion “fees” allegedly charged to cardholders of
         “no less than 1% of the transaction amount and
         frequently more;” and

    (ii) two alleged “intra-association” conspiracies, whereby
         each of Visa and MasterCard is claimed separately to
         have conspired with its members to fix currency
         conversion “fees” allegedly charged to cardholders of
         “no less than 1% of the transaction amount” and “to
         facilitate and encourage institution—and collection—of
         second tier currency conversion surcharges.”

The MDL Complaint also asserts that the alleged currency
conversion “fees” have not been disclosed as required by the
Truth in Lending Act.

On July 20, 2006, MasterCard and the other defendants in the MDL
action entered into agreements settling the MDL action and
related matters, as well as the Schwartz matter.  

Pursuant to the settlement agreements, MasterCard has paid
$72,480 to be used for defendants’ settlement fund to settle the
MDL action and $13,440, which is expected to be paid in the
third quarter of 2007, to settle the matter, “Schwartz v. Visa
Int’l Corp., et al.,” which was brought in the Superior Court of
California in February 2000, purportedly on behalf of the
general public over the conversion fee.

On Nov. 8, 2006, Judge Pauley granted preliminary approval of
the settlement agreements.  The settlement agreements are
subject to final approval by Judge Pauley, and resolution of all
appeals.

On Nov. 15, 2006, the plaintiff in one of the New York state
court cases appealed the preliminary approval of the settlement
agreement to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  

On June 6, 2007, the appellate court granted MasterCard’s motion
to defer briefing until a final settlement is approved in the
MDL action.

The hearing on final approval of the settlement agreements has
been scheduled for March 31, 2008, according to the company's
Oct. 31, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30,
2007.

The suit is "In Re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation,
Master Docket No. 1:01-md-1409," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge William
H. Pauley, III.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

         David J. Bershad, Esq.
         Michael Morris Buchman, Esq.
         Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP
         One Pennsylvania Plaza
         New York, NY 10119
         Phone: (212) 594-5300 and 212-946-9387
         Fax: 212-868-1229
         E-mail: mbuchman@milbergweiss.com

         Christopher Burke, Esq.
         Amelia F. Burroughs, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins, LLP
         Suite 1800, 600 West Broadway
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: (619) 231-1058
         Fax: (619) 231-7423

              - and -

         Sheldon V. Burman, Esq.
         Law Offices of Sheldon V. Burman, PC
         110 East 59th Street
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: (212) 935-1600


MASTERCARD INT'L: Dismissal of Interchange Fees Suit Appealed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has yet to rule on an appeal against a dismissal of the class
action “Kendall, et al. v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., et al., Case No.
3:04-cv-04276-JSW,” which names MasterCard International, Inc.,
as a defendant.

On Oct. 8, 2004, a purported class action lawsuit was filed by a
group of merchants in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against MasterCard International, Visa
U.S.A., Inc., Visa International Corp. and several member banks
in California alleging, among other things, that MasterCard’s
and Visa’s interchange fees contravene the Sherman Act and the
Clayton Act.

The plaintiffs seek damages and an injunction against MasterCard
(and Visa) setting interchange and engaging in “joint marketing
activities,” which plaintiffs allege include the purported
negotiation of merchant discount rates with certain merchants.

MasterCard moved to dismiss the claims in the complaint for
failure to state a claim and, in the alternative, also moved for
summary judgment with respect to certain of the claims.

On July 25, 2005, the court issued an order granting
MasterCard’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint with
prejudice which plaintiffs have appealed.  

Oral argument on the appeal was held on June 11, 2007.  The
parties are awaiting a decision.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Oct.
31, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is "Kendall, et al. v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., et al., Case
No. 3:04-cv-04276-JSW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Jeffrey S. White.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Richard Joseph Archer, Esq.
         Archer & Hansen
         3110 Bohemian Highway
         Occidental, CA 95465
         Phone: 707-874-3438
         Fax: 707-874-3438
         E-mail: archerdic@aol.com

              - and -

         James Archer Kopcke, Esq.
         Golden & Kopcke, LLP
         22 Battery Street, Suite 610
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Phone: 415-399-9995
         Fax: 415-398-5890
         E-mail: jameskopcke@yahoo.com

Representing the company are:

         Jay Neil Fastow, Esq.
         Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP
         767 Fifth Avenue
         New York, NY 10153
         Phone: 212-310-8644
         Fax: 212-310-8007
         E-mail: jay.fastow@weil.com

         Gianluca Morello, Esq.
         Fowler White Boggs Banker, P.A.,
         501 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1700
         Tampa, FL 33602
         Phone: (813) 769-7867
         E-mail: gianluca.morello@fowlerwhite.com
      
              - and -

         Wesley Railey Powell, Esq.
         Hunton & Williams, LLP
         200 Park Avenue
         New York, NY 10166
         Phone: 212-309-1013
         Fax: 212-309-1100
         E-mail: wpowell@hunton.com


MASTERCARD INT’L: Discovery Continues in Interchange Fees MDL
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fact discovery is ongoing in a purported class action filed by a
group of merchants against MasterCard International Inc., among
others, alleging that the company’s purported setting of
interchange fees violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

On June 22, 2005, a purported class action lawsuit was filed by
a group of merchants in the U.S. District Court of Connecticut
against MasterCard International Inc., Visa U.S.A., Inc. Visa
International Service Association and a number of member banks
alleging, among other things, that MasterCard’s and Visa’s
purported setting of interchange fees violates Section 1 of the
Sherman Act.

In addition, the complaint alleges MasterCard’s and Visa’s
purported tying and bundling of transaction fees also
constitutes a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  The
suit seeks treble damages in an unspecified amount, attorneys’
fees and injunctive relief.

Since the filing of this complaint, there have been
approximately 50 similar complaints (the majority styled as
class actions although a few complaints are on behalf of
individual plaintiffs) filed on behalf of merchants against
MasterCard and Visa (and in some cases, certain member banks) in
federal courts in California, New York, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania,
New Jersey, Ohio, Kentucky and Connecticut.

On Oct. 19, 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
issued an order transferring these cases to Judge Gleeson of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York for
coordination of pre-trial proceedings.  On April 24, 2006, the
group of purported class plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class
Action Complaint.

Taken together, the claims in the First Amended Class Action
Complaint and in the complaints brought on the behalf of the
individual merchants are generally brought under Sections 1 and
2 of the Sherman Act.

Specifically, the complaints contain some or all of these
claims:

     (i) that MasterCard’s and Visa’s setting of interchange
         fees (for both credit and offline debit transactions)
         violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act;

    (ii) that MasterCard and Visa have enacted and enforced
         various rules, including the no surcharge rule and
         purported anti-steering rules, in violation of Section
         1 or 2 of the Sherman Act;

   (iii) that MasterCard’s and Visa’s purported bundling of the
         acceptance of premium credit cards to standard credit
         cards constitutes an unlawful tying arrangement; and

    (iv) that MasterCard and Visa have unlawfully tied and
         bundled transaction fees.

In addition to the claims brought under federal antitrust law,
some of these complaints contain certain state unfair
competition law claims based upon the same conduct described
above.  

These interchange-related litigations also seek treble damages
in an unspecified amount (although several of the complaints
allege that the plaintiffs expect that damages will range in the
tens of billions of dollars), as well as attorneys’ fees and
injunctive relief.

On June 9, 2006, MasterCard answered the complaint and moved to
dismiss or, alternatively, moved to strike the pre-2004 damage
claims that were contained in the First Amended Class Action
Complaint and moved to dismiss the Section 2 claims that were
brought in the individual merchant complaints.

On Sept. 7, 2007, Magistrate Judge Orenstein issued a report and
recommendation that MasterCard’s motion to dismiss the pre-2004
damages claims should be granted in its entirety.

The time in which plaintiffs can file objections to this report
is currently running.  The parties are awaiting a decision on
MasterCard’s motion to dismiss the Section 2 claims.

Fact discovery is scheduled to be completed by June 30, 2008,
with briefing on case dispositive motions to be completed by
June 30, 2009.  No trial date has been scheduled.

MasterCard, Inc. -- http://www.mastercard.com/us/company/en/--  
is a global payment solutions company that provides a variety of
services in support of the credit, debit and related payment
programs of nearly 25,000 financial institutions.  Through the
Company’s three-tiered business model as franchisor, processor
and advisor, it develops and markets payment solutions, process
payment transactions, and provide consulting services to its
customers and merchants.  The Company manages a family of
payment card brands, including MasterCard, MasterCard
Electronic, Maestro and Cirrus, which it licenses to its
customers.  MasterCard’s general purpose card brands include
MasterCard, Visa, American Express, JCB, Diners Club and
Discover.


MASTERCARD INC: Ruling on Motion to Junk Suit Over IPO Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
MasterCard, Inc. is awaiting a ruling on its motion to dismiss
all claims contained in a supplemental complaint filed in
relation to its 2006 Initial Public Offering.

On July 5, 2006, the group of purported class plaintiffs filed a
supplemental complaint alleging that the IPO and certain
purported agreements entered into between MasterCard Inc. and
its member financial institutions in connection with its 2006
IPO:

     (1) violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act because their
         effect allegedly may be to substantially lessen
         competition,

     (2) violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act because they
         allegedly constitute an unlawful combination in
         restraint of trade, and

     (3) constitute a fraudulent conveyance because the member
         banks are allegedly attempting to release without
         adequate consideration from the member banks
         MasterCard’s right to assess the member banks for
         MasterCard’s litigation liabilities in these
         interchange-related litigations and in other antitrust
         litigations pending against it.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and an order reversing
and unwinding the IPO.  

On Sept. 15, 2006, MasterCard moved to dismiss all of the claims
contained in the supplemental complaint.  The parties are
awaiting a decision.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Oct.
31, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

MasterCard, Inc. -- http://www.mastercard.com/us/company/en/--  
is a global payment solutions company that provides a variety of
services in support of the credit, debit and related payment
programs of nearly 25,000 financial institutions.  Through the
Company’s three-tiered business model as franchisor, processor
and advisor, it develops and markets payment solutions, process
payment transactions, and provide consulting services to its
customers and merchants.  The Company manages a family of
payment card brands, including MasterCard, MasterCard
Electronic, Maestro and Cirrus, which it licenses to its
customers.  MasterCard’s general purpose card brands include
MasterCard, Visa, American Express, JCB, Diners Club and
Discover.


MASTERCARD INT’L: Discovery Ongoing in Calif. Consumer Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a purported class action filed in
California state court that seeks to piggyback on a portion of a
federal antitrust litigation that names MasterCard
International, Inc., as a defendant.

                  Federal Antitrust Litigation

In October 1998, the U.S. Department of Justice filed suit
against MasterCard International, Inc., Visa U.S.A., Inc. and
Visa International Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York alleging that both MasterCard’s
and Visa’s governance structure and policies violated U.S.
federal antitrust laws.

First, the DOJ claimed that “dual governance” -- the situation
where a financial institution has a representative on the board
of directors of MasterCard or Visa while a portion of its card
portfolio is issued under the brand of the other association --
was anti-competitive and acted to limit innovation within the
payment card industry.

Second, the DOJ challenged MasterCard’s Competitive Programs
Policy (CPP) and a Visa bylaw provision that prohibited
financial institutions participating in the respective
associations from issuing competing proprietary payment cards
(such as American Express or Discover).

The DOJ alleged that MasterCard’s CPP and Visa’s bylaw provision
acted to restrain competition.

                      California Litigation

On April 29, 2005, a complaint was filed in California state
court on behalf of a putative class of consumers under
California unfair competition law (Section 17200) and the
Cartwright Act.

The claims in this action seek to piggyback on the portion of
the DOJ antitrust litigation in which the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York found that MasterCard’s
CPP and Visa’s bylaw constitute unlawful restraints of trade
under the federal antitrust laws.

MasterCard and Visa moved to dismiss the complaint and the court
granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’
Cartwright Act claims but denied the defendants’ motion to
dismiss the plaintiffs’ Section 17200 unfair competition claims.

MasterCard filed an answer to the complaint on June 19, 2006 and
the parties are proceeding with discovery, according to the
company's Oct. 31, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended Sept. 30, 2007.

MasterCard, Inc. -- http://www.mastercard.com/us/company/en/--  
is a global payment solutions company that provides a variety of
services in support of the credit, debit and related payment
programs of nearly 25,000 financial institutions.  Through the
Company’s three-tiered business model as franchisor, processor
and advisor, it develops and markets payment solutions, process
payment transactions, and provide consulting services to its
customers and merchants.  The Company manages a family of
payment card brands, including MasterCard, MasterCard
Electronic, Maestro and Cirrus, which it licenses to its
customers.  MasterCard’s general purpose card brands include
MasterCard, Visa, American Express, JCB, Diners Club and
Discover.


MCDONALD'S CORP: Ill. Securities Fraud Lawsuit Now Closed
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a securities fraud class action filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against
McDonald's Corp. have voluntarily dismissed their appeal against
the dismissal of the case.

The suit is “Allan Selbst v. McDonald's Corp., Jack M.
Greenberg, Matthew H. Paull and Michael J. Roberts.”  It was
filed on April 2, 2004.  Two nearly identical actions were
subsequently filed in the same court.  

On Oct. 19, 2004, the lead plaintiff filed its amended and
consolidated class action complaint, alleging, among other
things, that the company and individual defendants misled
investors by issuing false and misleading financial reports and
earnings projections in a series of press releases and other
public statements between Dec. 14, 2001 and Jan. 22, 2003,
thereby overstating the company's current and anticipated
earnings.

The amended complaint seeks class action certification,
unspecified compensatory damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

On Jan. 18, 2005, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.  On Sept. 21, 2005, the court denied this
motion.  The lead plaintiff then filed its First Amended
Complaint on Oct. 7, 2005.

On May 17, 2006, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the amended complaint without prejudice, giving the
plaintiffs another chance to state a claim.

On June 16, 2006, the plaintiffs filed their third amended
complaint.  On July 17, 2006, the defendants filed their motion
to dismiss the complaint.

On Dec. 15, 2006, the court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss with prejudice.  On Jan. 16, 2007, the plaintiffs filed
their notice of appeal from the court's order of dismissal.

On Aug. 24, 2007, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their
appeal, thereby ending this legal proceeding.

The suit is “Selbst v. McDonald's Corp., et al., Case No. 1:04-
cv-02422,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois under Judge Blanche M. Manning.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          200 Broadhollow Road, #406
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: (631) 367-7100

Representing the company is:

          Robert J. Kopecky, Esq.
          Kirkland & Ellis LLP
          200 East Randolph Drive, Suite 6100
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (312) 861-2000
          E-mail: rkopecky@kirkland.com


OLD GENTILLY: Lawsuit Filed Over New Orleans Landfill
-----------------------------------------------------
Environmental lawyers have filed a class action against the
operators of the Old Gentilly Landfill in New Orleans as well as
the dump's purported landowner, the city of New Orleans,
according to a report by Gordon Russell of The Times-Picayune.

Joel Waltzer and Robert Wiygul filed the suit in Civil District
Court.  They are seeking to have the suit certified as a class
action on behalf of "hundreds of individuals and corporations"
that own property in the 200-acre site.  

The landfill was created after Hurricane Katrina when it was
opened under emergency authorization.  It sits partly on top of
an old city dump and partly atop the neighboring subdivisions,
the suit says.  

The suit asks a judge to:

     -- stop the operators from trespassing on private;

     -- to provide a share of the tipping fees taken in thus far
        to the owners of property;

     -- give owners of such properties insurance policies
        protecting them from any possible future liability
        stemming from the refuse on the site.

The dump is run by construction company owner Stephen Stumpf and
trash hauler Jimmie Woods.


PROTIVITI INC: Still Faces Consultant's Overtime Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Protiviti, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Robert Half
International, Inc., faces a purported class action in
California relating to unpaid overtime pay.

On May 4, 2006, plaintiff Don Tran, on behalf of himself and a
putative class of salaried Consultants, and a sub-class of
terminated salaried Consultants, filed a complaint in California
Superior Court naming Protiviti Inc., as Defendant.  

The complaint alleges that salaried consultants based in
California have been misclassified under California law as
exempt employees and seeks an unspecified amount for unpaid
overtime pay alleged to be due to them had they been paid as
non-exempt, hourly employees.

Plaintiff also seeks an unspecified amount for statutory
penalties for alleged violations of the California Labor Code
arising from the alleged misclassification of these employees as
exempt employees.

The complaint further seeks damages and penalties for the
failure to provide meal and rest periods, and for the failure to
reimburse business expenses, including, without limitation,
parking and cellular telephone expenses.

Robert Half reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 2,
2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Robert Half International, Inc. -- http://www.rhi.com/--    
provides specialized staffing and risk consulting services.  The
Company, through its Accountemps, Robert Half Finance &
Accounting, and Robert Half Management Resources divisions, is a
specialized provider of temporary, full-time project
professionals in the fields of accounting and finance.


PUGET ENERGY: Faces Suit in Wash. Over Proposed Acquisition
-----------------------------------------------------------
Puget Energy, Inc., and its directors face a purported class
action that was filed in King County Superior Court, Seattle,
Washington in relation to a proposed sale of the company that
was announced in October.

The suit is a purported class action filed by Edward Tansey on
Oct. 26, 2007 on behalf of an alleged class of Puget Energy's
shareholders.

Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the director
defendants breached their fiduciary duties in approving the
proposed acquisition of Puget Energy by a consortium of long-
term infrastructure investors led by Macquarie Infrastructure
Partners, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board and British
Columbia Investment Management Corp. that was publicly announced
on Oct. 26, 2007.  

The suit seeks to enjoin the defendants from consummating the
proposed acquisition and other relief.

Puget Energy, Inc. -- http://www.pugetenergy.com-- is an energy  
services holding company.  All of the Company's operations are
conducted through its subsidiary, Puget Sound Energy, Inc.
(PSE), a utility company.  Puget Energy has no significant
assets other than the stock of its PSE.


RADIOSHACK CORP: Courts Approve $8.8M FLSA Lawsuit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Three Federal District Courts have approved a coordinated class
action settlement for approximately $8.8 million in a series of
lawsuits brought by RadioShack store managers against the
company.

The courts' approval follows a conditional settlement reached by
the plaintiff classes and RadioShack Corporation in June of
2006.

The cases, initially filed in 2002, were litigated by five
separate firms for the Plaintiffs in four states, led by:

     -- Robert Thompson, Lee Sherman and Charles Russell of
        Callahan, McCune & Willis, APLC;

     -- Daniel K. Touhy of Touhy & Touhy, Ltd.; and

     -- Joseph Roda and Michele Burkholder of RodaNast, P.C.

Messrs. Thompson and Touhy jointly argued the 80/80 issue in
Chicago, and were extremely pleased to have helped bring about
this new legal standard which may provide guidance in other
cases affecting small retail operations throughout the nation.

The plaintiff classes, which included over 4000 current and
former RadioShack store managers, sought recovery of unpaid
overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act claiming that
RadioShack had misclassified them as employees exempt from the
receipt of overtime wages. The Pennsylvania class also sought
relief under two state overtime wage statutes.

A landmark court ruling by District Court Judge Rebecca
Pallmeyer on the issue of subordinate supervision in the case
both paved the way for the settlement and established new
guidance in this area of the law, which is now being cited in
cases throughout the country as the "80/80" rule.

Earlier, Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois granted final approval to
an $8.8 million settlement of a purported class action filed
against Radioshack Corp. over allegations that the company
misclassified certain RadioShack store managers as exempt from
overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act or similar
state laws (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 5, 2007).

The suit is "Perez, et al. v. RadioShack Corp., Case No. 02 C  
7884," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois under Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

         Timothy J. Touhy, Esq.
         Daniel K. Touhy, Esq.
         James B. Zouras, Esq.
         Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
         Touhy & Touhy, Ltd.
         161 North Clark Street, Suite 2210
         Chicago, Illinois 60601
         Phone: (877) 372-2209
         Fax: (312) 456-3838
         E-mail: lawyers@touhylaw.com
         Web site: http://www.radioshackclassaction.com

              - and -

         Peter M. Callahan, Esq.
         Robert W. Thompson, Esq.
         Lee A. Sherman, Esq.
         Callahan, McCune & Willis
         111 Fashion Lane
         Tustin, California 92780
         Phone: (714) 730-5700
         Fax: (714) 730-1642
         E-mail: classaction@cmwlaw.net

Representing the company are:  

         Edward W. Bergmann, Esq.
         Justin M. Crawford, Esq.
         Brian J. Hipp, Esq.
         Seyfarth Shaw
         55 East Monroe Street, Suite 4200
         Chicago, Illinois 60603
         Phone: (312) 346-8000
         Fax: (312) 269-8869

              - and -

         Robert S. Brewer, Jr., Esq.
         Ross H. Hyslop, Esq.,
         Robert A. Cocchia, Esq.
         McKenna, Long & Aldridge, LLP
         750 B Street, Suite 3300
         San Diego, California 92101
         Phone: (619) 595-5400
         Fax: (619) 595-5450
         E-mail: rsattorneys@mckennalong.com


REGENCE BLUESHIELD: Faces Wash. Lawsuit Over Customer Fraud
-----------------------------------------------------------
Regence Blueshield is facing a class-action complaint filed in
the Superior Court for the State of Washington claiming it
defrauds customers, misrepresents its services and ignored its
own review panel to do so, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiffs Kimberly and Craig Young claim that, in
violation of its "Breakthru Plan" contract, Regence stops
charging a reduced rate for medical services once patients have
run up bills to a certain amount, and requires them to switch
doctors if they want to keep getting reduced rates.

Plaintiffs claim Regence's own appeals panel told the company to
knock it off, but Regence persists.

Plaintiffs bring this action as a class action pursuant to Rule
23 of the Civil Rules for Superior Court for the State of
Washington on behalf of all those who purchased a Regence
Preferred Plan, whether na individual or group health plan,
including by not limited to, a Regence Breakthru Plan, from Nov.
13, 2001 to the present.

They want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants misrepresented the benefits provided
         under the contracts of insurance based on their
         standard practices and procedures;

     (b) whether defendants gave negligent or improper
         representations concerning contract benefits based on
         their standard practices and procedures;

     (c) whether defendants breached express warranties;

     (d) whether defendants breached implied warranties;

     (e) whether defendants breached their duties of good faith
         and fair dealing;

     (f) whether defendants breached express contracts;

     (g) whether defendants breached impied contracts;

     (h) whether defendants violated the Washington Insurance
         Code, RCW 48.010.010, et seq.;

     (i) whether defendants violated the Washington Consumer
         Protection Act, RCW 19.86, et seq.;

     (j) whether defendants made intentional, reckless or
         negligent misrepresentations based on their standard
         practices and procedures;

     (k) whether defendants failed to exercise reasonable and
         ordinary care in the sales and marketing of individual
         health plans based on their standard practices and
         procedures;

     (l) whether the class members are entitled to specific
         performance of the contracts;

     (m) whether plaintiffs and the class members are entitled
         to recover direct, incidental, and consequential
         damages;

     (n) whether plaintiffs and class members are entitled to
         recover attorney fees; and

     (o) whether plaintiffs and class members are entitled to
         injunctive relief.

Plaintiffs pray for relief as follows:

      -- for an order confirming that this conditionally
         certified class action is properly maintainable as a
         class action, and appointing plaintiffs and their
         undersigned counsel to represent the class;

      -- for damages and all monetary relief authorized by law
         or referenced in the complaint in an amount to be
         proven at time of trial including, but not limited to,
         amounts billed to and paid by plaintiffs and the class
         in excess of the Allowed Amounts negotiated by Regence
         with Preferred Plan providers;

      -- for attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses incurred;

      -- for treble damages or punitive damages as allowed by
         law;

      -- for prejudgment interest at the highest rate allowed by
         law on all liquidated amounts;

      -- for a declaration that the defendants have engaged in  
         unfair and deceptive acts and practices and other
         wrongful conduct contrary to the laws of the State of
         Washington;

      -- for a permanent injunction prohibiting defendants from
         engaging in the acts and conduct described;

      -- for leave to amend this complaint to conform to the
         evidence introduced at trial; and

      -- for such other and further relief as the court deems
         just and equitable.

The suit is "Kimberly Young et al. v. REgence Blueshield et al.
Case No. 07-2-36112-0 SEA," filed in the Superior court for the
State of Washington, County of King.


ROBERT HALF: Calif. Court Certifies Class in Overtime Pay Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court certified a class in a lawsuit
filed by employees of Robert Half International, Inc. who were
allegedly denied overtime compensation.

On Sept. 10, 2004, plaintiff Mark Laffitte, on behalf of himself
and a putative class of salaried Account Executives and Staffing
Managers, filed a complaint in California Superior Court naming
the company and three of its wholly owned subsidiaries as
Defendants.

The complaint alleges that salaried Account Executives and
Staffing Managers based in California have been misclassified
under California law as exempt employees and seeks an
unspecified amount for unpaid overtime pay alleged to be due to
them had they been paid as non-exempt hourly employees.

In addition, the Plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount for
statutory penalties for alleged violations of the California
Labor Code arising from the alleged misclassification of these
employees as exempt employees.

On June 22, 2006, the court heard cross-motions concerning class
certification.  On Sept. 18, 2006, the Court issued an order
certifying a class with respect to claims for alleged unpaid
overtime pay, but denied certification with respect to claims
relating to meal periods and rest time breaks.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 2,
2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Robert Half International, Inc. -- http://www.rhi.com/--  
provides specialized staffing and risk consulting services.  The
Company, through its Accountemps, Robert Half Finance &
Accounting, and Robert Half Management Resources divisions, is a
specialized provider of temporary, full-time project
professionals in the fields of accounting and finance.

   
ROBERT HALF: Seeks Stay on State Law Claims in Mass. Labor Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Half International, Inc. asked the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts to stay its decision on the
motion for certification of state law claims pending resolution
of the summary judgment motions in the purported class action
against the company over unpaid overtime work.

On Dec. 6, 2004, plaintiffs Ian O'Donnell and David Jolicoeur,
on behalf of themselves and a putative class of salaried
Staffing Managers, Account Executives and Account Managers,
filed a complaint in Massachusetts Superior Court naming the
Company and one of its wholly owned subsidiaries as Defendants.

The complaint alleges that salaried Staffing Managers, Account
Executives and Account Managers based in Massachusetts within
the past two years have been misclassified under Massachusetts
law as exempt employees and seeks an unspecified amount equal to
three times their unpaid overtime compensation alleged to be due
to them had they been paid as non-exempt, hourly employees, plus
costs and legal fees.

It also makes similar allegations under the U.S. Fair Labor
Standards Act on behalf of all Staffing Managers, Account
Executives and Account Managers employed in any state other than
Massachusetts and California within the past three years and
seeks an unspecified amount for unpaid overtime pay alleged to
be due to them had they been paid as non-exempt, hourly
employees, plus an equal amount as liquidated damages.

The case has been removed to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts.  

On March 30, 2006, the Court allowed Plaintiffs to amend their
complaint to add claims that the Company failed to pay its
exempt employees on a “salary basis” as required by
Massachusetts and federal law, but denied Plaintiffs’ first
motion seeking conditional certification of their federal claims
as a collective action on behalf of a group of Staffing
Managers, Account Executives and Account Managers.

The Plaintiffs later filed a second motion for conditional
certification, which the Court denied on May 10, 2007.  

The Plaintiffs have filed a motion for reconsideration of such
ruling, which the Company has opposed.

The parties have also filed cross-motions for summary judgment
on Plaintiffs’ salary basis claims, which motions are still
pending.

Finally, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking certification, based
on their state law salary basis claims, of a class of salaried
Massachusetts employees.

The Company has asked the Court to stay its decision on the
motion for certification of state law claims pending resolution
of the summary judgment motions, according to its Nov. 2, 2007
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is "O'Donnell et al v. Robert Half International, Inc.
et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-12719-NMG," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts under Judge Nathaniel M.
Gorton.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Shannon E. Liss-Riordan, Esq.
         Pyle, Rome, Lichten, Ehrenberg & Liss-Riordan, P.C.
         18 Tremont Street, Suite 500
         Boston, MA 02109
         Phone: 617-367-7200
         Fax: 617-367-4820
         E-mail: sliss@prle.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Richard L. Alfred, Esq.
         Seyfarth Shaw
         World Trade Center East, Two Seaport Lane, Suite 300
         Boston, MA 02210-2028
         Phone: 617-946-4800
         Fax: 617-946-4801
         E-mail: ralfred@seyfarth.com


SAFECO INSURANCE: Chiropractor Told to Produce Billing Records
--------------------------------------------------------------
Madison County Circuit Judge Barbara Crowder ordered attorneys
of a chiropractor suing Safeco Insurance to produce billing
records way back 1995 to support allegations the plaintiff was
paid less than he charged for treating accident victims, Steve
Korris of St. Clair Record reports.

According to the report, Judge Crowede said at an October
hearing, that if Frank Bemis couldn't retrieve the data from his
computers, Safeco can send an expert to retrieve it.

Safeco has given the Lakin Law Firm, Mr. Bemis' attorney,
238,000 pages of evidence and the Lakins gave Safeco three
pages.

Mr. Bemis is seeking certification of the suit as class action.

Representing Safeco is attorney Cari Dawson of Chicago.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Dennis Barton, Esq.
          The Lakin Law Firm, P.C.
          300 Evans Avenue, P.O. Box 229
          Wood River, Illinois  62095-0229
          (Madison Co.)
          Phone: 618-254-1127
          Telecopier: 618-254-0193
          Web site: http://www.lakinlaw.com


SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: July 2008 Trial Set for Suit Over Disposal
-------------------------------------------------------------
A July 2008 trial is scheduled for a purported class action
against SS&C Technologies, Inc. in connection with the
definitive merger agreement that it signed on July 28, 2005 to
be acquired by a corporation affiliated with The Carlyle Group.

Initially, two purported class actions were filed against the
company, each of its directors and, with respect to the first
matter described below, Sunshine Acquisition Corp., in the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle
County.

The first lawsuit is “Paulena Partners, LLC v. SS&C
Technologies, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1525-N,” which was filed on
July 28, 2005.

The complaint purports to state claims for breach of fiduciary
duty against all of the company's  directors at the time of
filing of the lawsuit.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that:

      -- the merger will benefit company’s management at the
         expense of company’s public stockholders,

      -- the merger consideration to be paid to stockholders is
         inadequate and does not represent the best price
         available in the marketplace for the company and

      -- the directors breached their fiduciary duties to the
         company’s stockholders in negotiating and approving the
         merger.

The complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification of
the lawsuit, an injunction preventing the consummation of the
merger (or rescinding the merger if it is completed prior to the
receipt of such relief), compensatory and/or rescissory damages
to the class and attorneys’ fees and expenses, along with such
other relief as the court might find just and proper.

The second lawsuit is “Stephen Landen v. SS&C Technologies,
Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1541-N,” which was filed Aug. 3, 2005.
The complaint purports to state claims for breach of fiduciary
duty against all of our directors at the time of filing of the
lawsuit.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that:

      -- the merger will benefit Mr. Stone and Carlyle at the
         expense of the company’s public stockholders;

      -- the merger consideration to be paid to stockholders is
         unfair and that the process by which the merger was
         approved was unfair; and

      -- the directors breached their fiduciary duties to the        
         company’s stockholders in negotiating and approving the
         merger.

The complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification of
the lawsuit, an injunction preventing the consummation of the
merger (or rescinding the merger if it is completed prior to the
receipt of such relief), compensatory and/or rescissory damages
to the class and costs and disbursements of the lawsuit,
including attorneys’ and experts’ fees, along with such other
relief as the court might find just and proper.

The two lawsuits were consolidated by order dated Aug. 31, 2005.  
On Oct. 18, 2005, the parties to the consolidated lawsuit
entered into a memorandum of understanding, pursuant to which
the company agreed to make certain additional disclosures to its
stockholders in connection with their approval of the
merger.

The memorandum of understanding also contemplated that the
parties would enter into a settlement agreement, which the
parties executed on July 6, 2006.

The settlement agreement was subject to customary conditions,
including court approval following notice to the stockholders of
SS&C.

The court held a hearing on Sept. 13, 2006, after which the
court requested supplemental briefing as to the fairness,
reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement.  Parties
submitted such supplemental briefing on Sept. 27, 2006.

On Nov. 29, 2006, the court disapproved the proposed settlement.
The parties are currently in discovery, and the court has set a
trial date for July 2008.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 2,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

SS&C Technologies Holdings -- http://www.ssctech.com-- helps  
its clients buy low and sell high.  The company (which operates
through its SS&C Technologies subsidiary) designs software for
managing financial portfolios, loans, real estate equity, back-
office processing, and securities trading, and it provides
consulting and outsourcing services.  SS&C's software handles
investment portfolio management, asset and liability management
for actuaries, property and casualty insurance company risk
management, and trade ordering and modeling.  Customers include
asset managers, insurance companies, banks, corporate
treasuries, hedge funds, home offices, and government agencies.


TD BANK: Court Certifies “Illegal” Visa Cardholders Fee Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Ontario Court of Appeal has certified a class action against
the Toronto-Dominion Bank.  The case involves allegations that
the Toronto-Dominion Bank charged undisclosed and unauthorized
fees to Toronto-Dominion Visa cardholders when the cardholders
made purchases in foreign currencies from 1986-2003.

The plaintiffs are represented by Sutts, Strosberg LLP and Pape
Barristers.

Harvey T. Strosberg, Partner at Sutts, Strosberg LLP, said "this
decision is of fundamental importance to TD Visa cardholders as
class members and to the public. The Court of Appeal recognized
the necessity of allowing a class action against a financial
institution which allegedly, repeatedly, overcharged some of its
customers' small amounts of money totaling tens of millions of
dollars."

Paul Pape, Partner, Pape Barristers added "This is a decision
which reflects the new Chief Justice's understanding that the
Class Proceedings Action is to be used to bring justice to
people with limited means. It will now be far easier to bring
action such as these to trial."

Sutts, Strosberg LLP has offices in Windsor and Toronto and
specializes in class action law suits. Its lawyers have been
involved in some of Canada's most important class actions
including the Walkerton class action, the Money Mart class
action and the Hepatitis-C class action against the Federal and
Provincial governments.

Sutts, Strosberg LLP on the Net: http://www.strosbergco.com.


TRANSKARYOTIC THERAPIES: Parties Settle Securities Suit for $50M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Transkaryotic Therapies Inc. and plaintiffs in a consolidated
securities fraud class action filed against the company in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts reached a
tentative $50,000,000 settlement in the matter.

In January and February 2003, various parties filed purported
class actions against:

     -- TKT, which was acquired by Shire, PLC, on July 27, 2005;  
        and  

     -- Richard Selden, TKT's former chief executive officer.    

The complaints generally allege securities fraud during the
period from January 2001 through January 2003.  Each of the
complaints asserts claims under Section 10(b) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  

They allege that TKT and its officers made false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose material information
concerning the status and progress for obtaining U.S. marketing
approval of TKT's REPLAGAL product to treat Fabry disease during
that period.  
  
On March 25, 2003, motions were filed with the court to appoint
lead plaintiff, lead counsel and for consolidation of all
related cases.   

The court appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel on April 9,
2003 and, subsequently, consolidated all cases into one class
action lawsuit entitled, “In re Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc.,
Securities Litigation.”

In July 2003, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated and amended
class action complaint against:  

     -- TKT;   

     -- Dr. Selden;   

     -- Daniel Geffken, TKT's former chief financial officer;   

     -- Walter Gilbert, Jonathan S. Leff, Rodman W. Moorhead,  
        III, and Wayne P. Yetter, then members of TKT's board  
        of directors;   
  
     -- William R. Miller and James E. Thomas, former members  
        of TKT's board of directors; and   

     -- SG Cowen Securities Corp., Deutsche Bank Securities
        Inc., Pacific Growth Equities, Inc. and Leerink Swann.  

Defendants filed their motions to dismiss the amended complaint
on Sept. 17, 2003, which lead plaintiffs opposed October 31,
2003.  On Dec. 4, 2003, the court heard oral arguments regarding
the motions to dismiss and took these motions under advisement.  

Thereafter on May 26, 2004 the court issued an order granting in
part and denying in part the defendants motions to dismiss.
Defendants then filed their answers to the amended complaint on
July 16, 2004.

On July 23, 2004 lead plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which defendants opposed.  Both parties have
provided briefs to the court regarding class certification.

In November 2005, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.    

On May 23, 2005, the court entered judgment on all claims
alleged against SG Cowen Securities Corp., Deutsche Bank
Securities Inc., Pacific Growth Equities, Inc., and Leerink
Swann & Company.  On June 5, 2006, the court entered judgment on
all claims alleged against Messrs. Gilbert, Leff, Moorhead,
Yetter, Miller, and Thomas.  

On Nov. 9, 2006, Mr. Geffken filed an Agreement for Judgment on
all claims alleged against him.  

In October 2007, the parties reached an agreement in principle
to resolve the Class Action Shareholder Suit, subject to court
approval, for $50 million.  Shire will contribute $27 million
toward the settlement and its insurance companies will
contribute the remaining $23 million.  The $27 million
settlement cost has been provided for within SG&A during this
quarter.

The suit is "In re Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc., Securities
Litigation, C.A. No. 03-10165-RWZ," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts under Judge Rya W.
Zobel.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

         Lauren Antonino, Esq.
         Chitwood & Harley
         2900 Promenade II, 1230 Peachtree Suite NE
         Atlanta, GA 30309
         Phone: 404-873-3900

              - and -

         Paul J. Geller, Esq.
         Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP  
         197 S. Federal Highway, Suite 200
         Boca Raton, FL 33432
         Phone: 561-750-3000
         Fax: 561-750-3364

Representing the defendants are:  

         Michael G. Bongiorno, Esq.
         Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP
         60 State Street
         Boston, MA 02115
         Phone: 617-526-6145
         Fax: 617-526-5000
         E-mail: michael.bongiorno@wilmerhale.com

              - and -

         Michael K. Fee, Esq.
         Ropes & Gray, LLP
         One International Place
         Boston, MA 02110
         Phone: 617-951-7000
         Fax: 617-951-7050
         E-mail: MFEE@ropesgray.com


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


FX ENERGY: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood, on November 13, 2007, filed a class action
in the United States District Court for the District of Utah
against FX Energy, Inc.

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price.

The class period is from March 30, 2004 through January 5, 2006.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class.

For more information, contact:

          William B. Federman
          Federman & Sherwood
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Email: wfederman@aol.com
          Website: http://www.federmanlaw.com


INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm has filed a class action in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of all purchasers of Industrial Enterprises of America, Inc.
stock during the period from November 14, 2006 through November
8, 2007.

The complaint charges that IEAM and certain of its present and
former officers, directors, and control persons violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
by issuing materially false and misleading statements pertaining
to IEAM's business prospects and condition, and filing financial
statements with the SEC materially false financial statements.

On November 7, 2007 the Company announced that investors could
no longer rely on its historical financial statements and that
the Company had not properly followed generally accepted
accounting principles, necessitating a revision of reported
revenue, among other things. The Company also announced that it
had suspended its CFO pending a review. As a result of these
events, the Complaint asserts that the price of IEAM stock
dropped, damaging investors.

Interested parties may move the court no later than January 15,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Laurence Rosen, Esq.
          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
          Tel:  (212) 686-1060
          Toll Free: 1-866--767-3653
          Fax: (212) 202-3827
          website: http://www.rosenlegal.com


SYNTAX-BRILLIAN: Gardy & Notis Files Securities Suit in Ariz.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gardy & Notis, LLP has filed a securities fraud class action in
the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on
behalf of purchasers of Syntax-Brillian Corp. securities between
May 1, 2007 and September 13, 2007.

The complaint charges that Syntax-Brillian, CEO Vincent F.
Solitto, Jr., and (now former) CFO Wayne Pratt misled
shareholders through false statements about the company's
business prospects, operations, demand for the company's
products, and adequacy of internal controls.

Purchasers of Syntax-Brillian securities between May 1, 2007 and
September 13, 2007 who wish to serve as lead plaintiff must file
a motion with the Court by January 15, 2008. Any member of the
purported class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.

For more information, contact:

          Dustin Mansoor
          Gardy & Notis, LLP
          Phone: 201-567-7377
          Fax: 201-567-7337
          E-mail: dmansoor@gardylaw.com
          Website: http://www.gardylaw.com


VODAFONE GROUP: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP  announced that a
class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional
investor in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Vodafone Group
Public Limited Company publicly traded securities, including
common/ordinary stock and American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs"),
during the period between June 10, 2004 and February 24, 2006.

The complaint charges Vodafone and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The complaint alleges that defendants' statements regarding
Vodafone's business and prospects issued during the Class Period
were false and misleading in failing to disclose the following
true facts:

     (a) throughout the Class Period, Vodafone's financial
         statements and reports were materially falsified and
         overstated, including the overstatement of its assets
         and operating earnings due to the over-valuation of its
         German, Italian and Japanese operations;

     (b) Vodafone's German operations had not been successfully
         integrated into Vodafone's overall operations and were
         suffering from significant operational problems,
         inefficiencies and a lack of growth and profitability
         adequate to permit Vodafone to recover its investment
         in its German operations;

     (c) Vodafone's Japanese operations were materially
         overvalued on Vodafone's financial statements due to
         the failure to hold or gain sufficient market share so
         as to permit Vodafone to recover its investment in its
         Japanese operations;

     (d) Vodafone's "One Vodafone" cost savings and operational
         efficiency initiative was not succeeding or achieving
         any significant cost savings; and

     (e) due to the foregoing adverse factors which were
         negatively impacting Vodafone's operations and
         financial performance, defendants knew that the levels
         of financial performance being forecast for Vodafone          
         for fiscal 2006 and 2007 would not and could not be
         achieved.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of Vodafone publicly traded securities, including
common/ordinary stock and ADRs, during the Class Period.

Vodafone is one of the world's largest providers of mobile
telephone services, with worldwide operations in 28 countries,
including in the United States, Germany, Italy and Japan.

For more information, contact:

          Darren Robbins
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          Phone: 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058
          E-mail: djr@csgrr.com



                           *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.   Glenn Ruel Senorin, Ma. Cristina Canson, and Janice
Mendoza, Editors.

Copyright 2007.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *